Mumbai Court February 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Baburao Mane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR816
1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment dated January 15, 1979 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaduj, acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 7(i) read with S. 2(ia)(c)(i) and S. 7(v) read with R. 44(b) and S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The Food Inspector accosted the accused on August 19, 1977 at about 9-30 a.m. while the accused was proceeding on a bicycle with milk can at Khatav. The Food Inspector purchased some quantity of milk and after dividing it into three parts, sent one sample to the Office of the Public Analyst for a report. The report become ready on September 8, 1977 and was received by the Food Inspector on September 13, 1977. Thereafter, the Food Inspector, secured the consent of the Chief Officer to file the prosecution and accordingly, the complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate on November 3, 1977. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst was handed over to the accu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Cinceita Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)250; [1982]137ITR652(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN82(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The relevant assessment year is 1968-69 for which the corresponding previous year was the year ending 30th June, 1967. The assessee took on lease the entire third floor of a building known as 'Apte property Trust Building' at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500. The agreement to lease was executed on 23rd June, 1964, whereas the deed of lease was execute on 2nd May, 1967. The lease was for an initial period of 20 years with an option for renewal granted to the lessee at a higher rent, as can be seen from cl. 5 of the lease deed dated 2nd May, 1967. It is common ground that the lease of the said premises was taken for the use thereof as business premises. For the relevant assessment year the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 10,700 as expenditure incurred by way of registration fee, stamp duty and solicitors' fees in connection with the drawing up of the said deed of lease. In...
Killick Nixon Limited and Others Vs. Bank of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR631; [1985]57CompCas831(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. Five petitioners have filed this petition under ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, against Killick Nixon Ltd. and the other respondents. The petitioners are the Bank of India, the Union Bank of India, Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mahesh Jayantilal Patel and Tejkumar Balakrishnan Ruia. The petition on behalf of the Bank of India and the union Bank of India is signed by petitioner No. 5, Tejkumar Balkrishna Ruia, as their constituted attorney. In the petition, it is stated that the bank of India holds, inter alia, 17,187 fully paid up shares in Killick Nixon Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The register of shareholders of the company shows the Bank of India as the holder of 17,187 fully paid up shares. The Bank of India has sold 16,706 shares out of these shares to Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. These shares, however, have not been transferred by the company in its register of shareholders in the name of Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd.2. The Union Bank of ...
Ranjitsingh S/O Kiratsingh Baghele Vs. Shamabai (Smt.) W/O Ranjitsingh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR171
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Whether cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code are maintainable in respect of appeals filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a point of law raised in the present second appeal.2. The answer to this question principally depends upon the combined reading of sections 21 and 28 of the Act. Contention of one side is that right to appeal as well as to file cross-objections are both substantive rights and as the Act specifically provides for appeals, and not for cross-objections, provisions contained in section 21 do not spell out such right. The other side contends that both cannot be equated. Right to file cross-objections is merely procedural and as procedure regulating the appeal under section 28 is not separately provided for and section 21 makes C.P. Code applicable to the proceedings under the Act, Order 41, Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code is attracted. In my judgment, the answer to this question has to be in favour of maintainability o...
Dnyaneshwar Dagdoba Hivrekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1870
1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused to challenge the legality of the judgment dated March 27, 1979, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code, and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. The incident which gave rise to the prosecution occurred at about 5 p.m. on November 10, 1979, in a Wada situated at Kasba Peth, Pune. The deceased was residing in the Wada along with his parents and two sisters Tai (P.W. 3) and Anju (P.W. 4). The deceased was a young man of about 23 years old, while the accused was equally a young man and was a friend of the deceased and was residing in the adjoining block in the same Wada. On the date of the occurrence, the deceased left his house and was going along with the accused towards the gymnasium for their regular exercise. Within a short distance from the house where both the accused and the deceased were residing, some dispute took p...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Mulchand Electric and Ra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)202; [1982]138ITR238(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN93(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Commissioner. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order made by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rightly vacated ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The relevant assessment year is 1960-61. The total income of the assessee for the said assessment year was determined at Rs. 2,47,777 by the ITO's order dated May 8, 1963, giving effect to the AAC's order in appeal against the original assessment. The taxes payable by the assessee amounted to Rs. 1,11,500. The distributable surplus thus left was Rs. 1,36,277. The statutory percentage...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Y.S. Desale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)237; [1982]137ITR117(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN115(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference made under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the basic question required to be decided is whether the promoters of a co-operative society can be taxed as an association of persons or a body of individuals in respect of the interest earned on the contribution of share capital of the members deposited by the promoters in co-operative banks.2. The agriculturists of Sakri Taluka decided to form a co-operative society to manufacture sugar under the name of Panzara Kan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. A body of 54 members was formed to take the necessary steps and this body was known as Karyakari Mandal. Seven out of the 54 persons were elected to what was known as an executive body and out of these 7 persons, 3 persons, namely, Y. Desale, P. B. Patil and R. S. Patil were appointed as promoters. Desale was the chief promoter and was given authority to sign documents, etc. Though the decision to form the co-operative society was taken on 20th November, 195...
Maruti Bhanudas Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR764
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. The accused was charged for an offence punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Pune, and the prosecution claimed that a theft took place between November 21, 1974 and September 7, 1979 at the house of Maniklal Baldota (P.W. 1) of two wrist watches and some gold and silver ornaments. Maniklal is residing at House No. 388, Raviwar Peth, Pune and is running a gold-smith's shop. The complainant Maniklal claims that in December 1974 he had kept a watch in his cupboard along with certain gold bangles and when he opened the cupboard in December 1977, he found that the two items were missing. The accused was arrested on October 1, 1978 in respect of commission of some other offence and it is the prosecution case that thereafter the watch was recovered from Suresh (P.W. 6) and bangles from Dattatraya (P.W. 4). A complaint was lodged by Maniklal on October 3,1978 and thereafter the accused was charge-sheet...
Krishna Shivaji Bhosale Vs. Mangaldas Bhanudas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR767
M.L. Pendse, J.1. These two revision applications are filed by the Food Inspector, Thane Municipal Council, Thane, to challenge the legality of the order dated October 19,1978 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Criminal Case No. 2986 of 1975 and 2983 of 1975 discharging the accused of the offence punishable under sections 2(i), 7 and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Both the revision applications can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as the order of discharge in both the matters proceeds on the some grounds.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution launched by the Food Inspector after obtaining permission of the Chief Officer was not valid because the report of the Public Analyst was in favour of the accused and to the effect that the food article sold was not adulterated. The trial Magistrate also held that after the report was received from the Director of Laboratory, Calcutta, the Food Insp...
Mukund Ukha Shimpi Vs. Premji Durgarai Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR441
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Food Inspector, Thane Municipal Council, Thane, to challenge the legality of the judgement dated August 4, 1978 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, acquitting the accused under section 2(1)(i), 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are as follows:Original accused No. 2 is the owner of a Kirana Shop situate at Thane and Inspector Shimpi visited the shop on April 17, 1975 and at that time original accused No. 1 was present in the shop. Complainant Shimpi purchased 600 grams of chilly powder from original accused No. 1 and thereafter divided the purchased sample into three equal parts and all the three samples were put into plastic bag and properly labelled and sealed. One such sealed packet sample was sent to the Public Analyst's Office at Pune and the report of the Public Analyst was that the sample was genuine and not adulterated. The Food Inspecto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »